I like them both. There are ways in which Raimi's version was closer to the comics, and there are other ways in which Webb's version is closer to the comics (e.g. mechanical webshooters, Gwen and George Stacy). Raimi's version, like any adaptation, was a variation on the theme, a new interpretation building on some facets of the comics and doing without others. Webb's is simply a different variation on the theme, doing the exact same thing but selecting different facets to emphasize. It's no more cynical than what Raimi did. If anything, it's good we have two different adaptations that emphasize different facets of the comics, because they complement each other, make up for each other's deficiencies.

i haven't sen ASM yet...because to me, i still can't get over that they essentially remade a movie that's a few years old. It'd be like if the remade the Hobbit (not Asylum style) a couple years after the last movie hits theaters.

As for SP3...i was thinking about putting up a post asking why people hated it so much (compared to 1 & 2). The only thing i can think of that seemed "off" was the Venom side story, that changed Peter Parker's personality to such a goofy extreme.

I think they had a GREAT storyline with Peter's ego getting out of control and having consequences for his relationship. But that got overshadowed by dancing man.

i might reply here if/when i see ASM. (Seems like a movie i can't watch with my kids, like i can the trilogy or Avengers).

i haven't sen ASM yet...because to me, i still can't get over that they essentially remade a movie that's a few years old.

Click to expand...

I don't get why people think that. Spider-Man has been a comic-book character for over 50 years. There have been thousands of stories told about him. The first Raimi movie was based on a variety of those stories, including the origin story, a whole extended arc about the Green Goblin and Harry Osborn, and a variation on the long-running romance arc between Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson. The Webb movie is based in part on the origin story as well, true, but everything else it draws on his different -- Peter's relationships with Gwen and George Stacy, the Curt Connors/Lizard storyline, the backstory of the death of Peter's parents. And of course they both add distinct original elements of their own. They really don't have that much in common. In fact, like I said, they complement each other. Aside from both dealing with the origin, each one includes story elements that the other chose not to utilize. ASM is more a counterpoint to Raimi's version than a copy of it.

It'd be like if the remade the Hobbit (not Asylum style) a couple years after the last movie hits theaters.

Click to expand...

That's a terrible analogy, because The Hobbit is based on one discrete story (plus the LOTR appendices that fill in its larger background), while these are drawing on largely different aspects of a half-century-long serial narrative. It's more like, ohh, the Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes movies, the BBC's Sherlock, and CBS's Elementary all coming out within a few years of each other. They're all drawing on selected pieces of a long-running canon, and have certain key elements in common (for instance, both the movies and Sherlock have done versions of "The Final Problem" within a year of each other), but since their source material is so large and expansive and they're only drawing on fragments of it, they can hardly be said to be telling the same story.

I disagree that it felt like a Raimi Spidey movie but it was about as safe and formulaic as you could get. They nearly took a risk but then decided to edit out all the risky stuff (much to the detriment of the overall product).